Is Iran the Next Iraq? on now 3a.m. PDT H. Chan U.S. -Time Warner

[Bigduke6]

Splinty,

"Officially" has next to nothing to do with reality. It is a legalistic position that might hold in an envirnoment where there were laws and due process; but this is international politics. Therefore, why pay attention to the official line? Better to look at the facts.

Most people with access to international news haven't quite forgotten the U.S. approach to Iraq "force isn't ruled out", "we take this threat seriously", "a clear and present danger", "democracy must not be hindered", "we don't need UN permission" and so on.

So, if the same justifications get trotted out against Iran, the world community is unsurprisingly not particularly persuaded U.S. intentions are peaceful. The last time the Americans pointed out there are contingency plans for everything, this does not necessarily mean we intend really to intervene, they attacked Iraq.

Ok, maybe a signficant portion of the American public is stupid enough to forget that, but most people in most other countries haven't. The decision makers in the Middle East definately haven't.

Price of being a dumb superpower. Act unilaterally and ineffectively, other countries aren't going to take you at your word the next time around.

[Peter Cairns]

Of course if you were really cynical (and this might just be too political), you could wonder if a lot of people in a US administration filled with people with and oil background, that was talking tough on Iran, might not privately be doing very nicely out of oil at $75 a barrel.

Well there is no third term and these people have their retirement incomes to think about.

And there was me criticising conspiracy theories on the General Forum. I should say for the record that as I tend to follow the cock up theory of history I don't think either side has engineered a crisis to force up oil prices.

Peter.

[LongLeftFlank]

I am shocked, shocked that anyone should intimate such a thing.

My mum is kicking herself for not putting everything into oil stocks the moment those two got elected.

Just spent a half hour in a gas line at Costco (haven't done that since 1977). And overhearing the conversations at the pumps, the GOP could be in for a nasty surprise in November. Gerrymandering or no. A lot of drive-thru-megachurch "Red" America is perfectly willing to vote Democrat if they get pissed enough.

[Abbott]

In his latest audio tape Osama bin Laden says that the Bush administration is evil, it's made up excuses to attack Iraq, and is obsessed with Middle Eastern oil. If Osama bin Laden keeps talking like that he could wind up the Democratic frontrunner.

[Peter Cairns]

Interesting graph on US oil profits in Todays Observer.

Unfortunately is not an article you can get on the net. It has figures for Profits for Conocophilips, Chevron and Exxonmobil from 2001 to today.

2001 CP= $ 3.2bn, Ch= $8.3bn, EM= $23.9bn

2005 CP= $23.5bn, Ch= $25.1bn, EM= $59.4bn,

1998 Price $13 a barrell, low point under Clinton, (started at $25 in 96, finished at $34 in 2000)

9/11 Price $28, Invaded Iraq 2003 Price $36, Katrina Price $68,

Newyorker reports Bush " prepared to attack Iran" $65.

Circumstantally you could build a conspiracy, but for me it's a combination of events bad luck and bad government, as no one could have engineered it even if they wanted too.

Peter.

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Interesting graph on US oil profits in Todays Observer.

Unfortunately is not an article you can get on the net. It has figures for Profits for Conocophilips, Chevron and Exxonmobil from 2001 to today.

2001 CP= $ 3.2bn, Ch= $8.3bn, EM= $23.9bn

2005 CP= $23.5bn, Ch= $25.1bn, EM= $59.4bn,

1998 Price $13 a barrell, low point under Clinton, (started at $25 in 96, finished at $34 in 2000)

9/11 Price $28, Invaded Iraq 2003 Price $36, Katrina Price $68,

Newyorker reports Bush " prepared to attack Iran" $65.

Circumstantally you could build a conspiracy, but for me it's a combination of events bad luck and bad government, as no one could have engineered it even if they wanted too.

Peter.

I wonder how British Petroleum is doing these days?

[ASL Veteran]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

So far the Iranians haven't broken any treaties, and the best they can be found guilty of is "Knowing how to build an atomic bomb", which isn't actually an offense, under any treaty that I am aware of.

That's certainly true. Of course, if it wasn't really a problem then I can't imagine that the French, German, and British governments would all be in agreement that the Iranians shouldn't be enriching uranium. Why won't the Iranians agree to let the Russians enrich the uranium for them?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Given that the US has just agreed to cooperate on nuclear energy with India and is arming both Pakistan and Israel, it's hardly got the moral high ground when it comes to preventing nuclear proliferation.

Cooperation with India that was hailed by the IAEA as a breakthrough. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with the decision to cooperate, but certainly the IAEA seems to think it was the right thing to do. Pakistan has asked for weapons from the US, but the deal for the fighter jets hasn't been approved yet as far as I know. Not much different from Russia selling an entire air defense system to Iran in a way. Israel makes a lot of their own weapons now, but certainly the US sells weapons to Israel and has been for decades. The US sells weapons to Egypt too btw. None of the weapons were nuclear as far as I know though (which is pretty much implied by your statement).

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Do I want Iran to be a nuclear power, No

If no, then why not? The rest of your post seems to indicate that you don't care whether Iran is a nuclear power or not so this position you hold seems to be in opposition to your other ones.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Do I think they are going to do it, Eventually Yes.

Do I think using force will do anything more than delay it, No.

Maybe, maybe not.

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Do I think a nuclear Iran would use them in anything other than the type of crisis that we would use them in, No

Well that's really the crux of the matter now isn't it? Perhaps you are right, but perhaps you are wrong. Nobody really knows for sure other than the Iranians. I guess it's not really an issue for the residents of Scotland though because the Iranians don't paint "Death to the great satan Scotland" on the sides of their missiles when they have their annual military parades. The president of Iran also hasn't publicly called for the annihilation of Scotland or for Scotland to be wiped off the map. The president of Iran also hasn't mentioned that the population of Scotland should be moved to Alaska or resettled in Poland. I guess that I should feel comforted by your belief that the president of Iran is a perfectly reasonable man who isn't willing to turn his entire nation into some version of a mega suicide bomber in the cause of martyrdom against the great satan. Sure, they probably know that the US could turn the entire nation of Iran into glass, but does Iran care? Even if Iran did launch a nuclear strike against Israel, is there any certainty that a retaliatory nuclear strike by the US would be viewed as appropriate by the "international community"?

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Do I think that kind of crisis is likely, No

Do I think that kind of crisis is far more likely if we've been bombing them, YES YES YES YES...

More assumptions. Wow, it's been a while since I've seen an interesting political discussion on these boards. I used to enjoy them back in the day. I'm not sure how this thread got overlooked, but I guess I'll enjoy it while it lasts.

[Saviola]

Originally posted by Abbott:

In his latest audio tape Osama bin Laden says that the Bush administration is evil, it's made up excuses to attack Iraq, and is obsessed with Middle Eastern oil. If Osama bin Laden keeps talking like that he could wind up the Democratic frontrunner.

Bushies and top Republicans just announced that IF this Abbot keeps touting, massaging and stroking them in this lamest, most bovine, light-years-from-funny, stiff and Al Gorish type of un-humor, they’ll slash their wrists and most certainly relinquish leadership to Abbott’s father, the good Democrat Sheik, Bin AbbottLadin.

They further cursed this Abbott National Health Hazard for defiling their “No Child Poked from Behind” policy and disseminating vile STDs on his last Frisco “fishing” trip. :eek:

Here’s embattled McClellan’s last statement: “in the service of wit, Abbott offers ****, in lieu of fluency, Abbott insists on bare-footed pregnancy, in a realm of pubic-spiritedness Abbott is the Ayatollah of parochial freakiness. Other than that, Sheik Abbott is damn funny!”

[Andreas]

http://www.wtrg.com/prices.htm

OPEC and Norway had government production restrictions in 2002 to shore up the oil price.

All the best

Andreas

[Peter Cairns]

I can understand Norway cutting production in 2002, at under $15 a barrell it was costing more to produce that they were getting from it. $15 a barrell is about North Sea production cost.

It's more like $10 or less in the Gulf, but why should you use up your countries non renewable resources quickly at a low rate of return so that someone else can have cheap fuel.

It's a bit rich for the EU and the US to complain about Opec, when they both subsidise their farmers and use tarffs to control agricultural prices.

Free trade is fine but as we have seen over the last few years there has been a reaction against the "globalisation" of world trade, with countries increasingly reasserting their soverign right to control the level and price of their own natural resources.

That might go down like a lead ballon with countries who's consumer and manufacturing sectors need cheap raw materials but we in the west don't really have any right to demand they go against there own national interest.

I've never been particularly keen on the International trickle down theory where if the economy in the devloped world booms, their will be benefits for all, because domestically the benefits to the poorest seem to be extremely small. Sure in the UK and US poverty has slightly diminished, but the gap between the rich and poor has got wider.

Peter.

Peter.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

I can understand Norway cutting production in 2002, at under $15 a barrell it was costing more to produce that they were getting from it. $15 a barrell is about North Sea production cost.

Err. No. You are so far off the mark, it is quite amusing. Norwegian production was reduced, but not shut in during the period. They were still making money. Just not as much as they liked to.

Linky to PDF containing boe production cost

And this

Production cost per boe was NOK 22.2 for the 12 months ended 31 December 2005, compared to NOK 23.3 for the 12 months ended 31 December 2004*.

23 NOK = 3.74 USD

Both these statements should be SRMC (short-run marginal cost), I believe, i.e. the cost of getting a particular barrel out of the ground, without paying for the infrastructure.

Regarding the middle east, you are out by at least an order of magnitude, I believe. Production cost defined as SRMC per boe there should be well below one dollar.

EIA - emphasis by me

These costs can range from as little as $2 per barrel in the Middle East to more than $15 per barrel in some fields in the United States, including capital recovery. It is interesting to note that technological advances in finding and producing oil have made it possible to bring once-expensive deepwater Gulf of Mexico oil into production for less than $10 per barrel.

Note that this cost is LRMC (long-range marginal cost), which covers the fixed cost of the investment, and has no bearing on the decision of whether to produce or not on a given day.

All the best

Andreas